Trump Is NOT One of Them

And look at all the 15 minute famers who instantly kicked him in the shins for this,
just like clockwork, starting with the Pittsburgh mayor.

It's working. Just like Chinese water torture, the media will continue to condition the masses. Right into the teeth of an ice age, these virtue
signalling drones will obey the
globalist assimilation, and not for nothing, no matter what. It keeps their closets secure from pop inspections, if nothing else.

But make no mistake: They are derailing him at each turn, and making absolute sport of disrepecting Trump's every initiative and objective. The
tactic will spread and tactitly signal the appearance of populist support and open rebellion unless Trump keeps the media on it's knees. Or until he,
and we, acknowledge our master's master plan. It is a trap to keep him flustered and engaged in war with an enemy that cannot be addressed unless it
is first exposed. I wish him luck.

He will need more than luck however.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to find the example I am looking for at the moment. It seems so far down in the search engine that I lost my
edit and had to log in again and again so here goes...

A few years ago, pre-Obama, Arnold Shwarznegger was forced to cancel a speech on what was called 'Global Warming', because an April record setting
blizzard struck most of the country like a divine omen. The snow fell everywhere, something like 48 states. And what a surprise. Arnold was busy
grooming himself for POTUS. I can still hear his rehearsed rationalization soundbytes...muffled now as though they were spoken beneath an
avalanche.

That was the exact moment mastah changed the name of the game to 'Man made Climate Change'.

Here is what I think the problem is, when we come out against things like cap and trade or the Paris accord, the left automatically assumes that means
we hate clean energy and want to stick with oil forever because we love us some greedy oil companies.

That's not the case. We are against the government forcing us to move away from these fuels by way of economic punishment. Innovation doesn't happen
by force. The light bulb wasn't invented because the government made laws against candle makers.

The Paris accord even by it's supporters does nothing to actually have an effect on the climate. The fact that the other countries are tottaly against
re negotiating shows this has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with $$$.

it's not exactly like that though. We get the tax part, but we aren't really forced off of fossil fuels yet, we just get to feel really bad about
using it, since there really isn't another option. Shame on you, I bet you drove to work today too.

Our oil and gas industry employees millions of Americans in high paying jobs. These are Americans with families to feed and mortgages. I don't
hate the oil companies like you do...I appreciate them.

I don't "hate the oil companies" at all. In fact, I fully appreciate the role of fossil fuels historically and to this very day. I also know that lots
of people work in the fossil fuel industry and it's a good living.

And?

Should we have not moved onto cars from the horse and buggy because it put buggy makers out business and stable hands out of work? Should we have
nixed the spinning frame because it displaced spinners and their spinning wheels? Why on Earth would we not just stymie the transition away from
fossil fuels but regress?

You want to know what REAL energy independence means? You're concerned with our national sovereignty?

It means an end to conflicts over limited reserves of fuels yanked from the ground. It means an end to the undue influence of oil and gas rich
countries. Lots of people believe that the conflict in Syria is a pipeline war. Wouldn't it be nice to end those? Let's not forget the role that
natural gas pipelines have played in Russian meddling with Ukrainian politics. Wouldn't it be great if Russia couldn't just turn the gas off on
Ukraine or threaten to shutdown the supply to large swaths of Eastern Europe?

How about if our economy didn't rise and fall on the whim of other nations? How many recessions from the last 40 years were caused by spikes in oil
prices? Would anyone miss those?

And wouldn't it be nice to pay less for energy? Less money to get around, less money to power your home?

It also means an end to a heavily subsidized industry that dumps millions and millions into lobbying to protect its profits and millions into
influencing the public opinion? Wouldn't that be nice?

I haven't even started talking about environmental impact, pollution or global warming. Is there any of this that doesn't sound good to you? I doubt
it. Right up through global warming, these are all very nonpartisan and without the fossil fuel industry funding denialism, watch how quickly that
ceases to be a political debate.

And if the energy from fossil fuels helped our society flourish to this point, just imagine what we can do with a lot more of it.

We should be pursuing new energy sources with everything we've got. What is the downside? Disrupting the jobs of people in the industry? All the more
reason that the US should get way out in front on this. I'd rather invest in the future than subsidize the past.

Donald Trump has proven himself the UBER globalist. It's not just his views on fossil fuels, he's promoting an agenda straight out of the 80's right
down to fattening up the military industrial complex with increased "defense" spending and trickle-down failnomics.

You used a lot of words to say nothing. Getting out of the Paris agreement doesn't remove the ability to search for new technology. It doesn't limit
our ability to work with other nations. It's 35 pages. Please point to the part in it that backs up what you just said.

The only thing it was for is giving money away with the facade of some global group hug. Nothing has changed today other than the mandate for us to
give away that money. If the idea was put up for a vote, then at least the people would have had a chance to understand what it was about and voice
an opinion. If your wife spends all the money on having a Black magic priest come bless your house for demons without telling you, I think it might
upset you a bit. That's a decision that should be made together.

If I'm wrong, explain what engineering opportunities went away with this event.

That's not the case. We are against the government forcing us to move away from these fuels by way of economic punishment. Innovation doesn't happen
by force. The light bulb wasn't invented because the government made laws against candle makers.

People innovate all the time as a means of economic prudence, home made windmills, rain catchers, repairs... etc. innovation happens due to the need
to solve a problem; and that problem can come from anywhere.

a reply to: Metallicus
If you read Alfredo Jalife (a geopolitics expert/author) he clearly states that there was a military cue this past election, a new group took power
from TPTB, so far everything I see fits the narrative.

First off, can you explain exactly how the Paris agreement leads to the US giving "billions of dollars to China & India?" The Obama administration
pledged $3 billion to GCF (of which $1 billion has been paid). The total of the fund was to be $100 billion by 2020. We didn't pledge anymore money
but we did stipulate an upper limit from the onset: 30% of the total confirmed pledges.

There's no penalty if we didn't give the money to the fund. There's a 24-member board overseeing how the fund is apportioned — so for you to say it
would go to "China & India" is pure speculation.

As for China owning our debt. That's a gross mischaracterization. China owns about $1 trillion of our debt which puts them second, beyond Japan with
about $1.1 trillion, among foreign holders (who total about $6.3 trillion). The rest of the debt is something like this: $5.5 trillion intragovernment
(largest holders Social Security Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund at about $2.8 trillion), another $2.5 trillion by the Federal
Reserve, $1.4 trillion in mutual funds, $875 million in state and local gov pension funds, half a billion in private pension funds, half a billion
owned by domestic banks, $300 million by insurance companies and the rest is spread over US savings bonds holders and miscellaneous.

So China owns about 1/19th of our debt or 5.2%.

Let me know if you need an up-to-date source.

EDIT:

It appears we've actually only paid in $500 million to the GCF from sources I was reading.

The rest of the world will leave us behind when it comes to innovating new technologies that will no doubt trickle into other fields.

The entire thing was totally non-binding anyway. It's not like the USA would be held accountable if they didn't put forth much effort.

Yeah, I can see it now... Today all the companies in America working on technologies for efficient and clean energy creation have just shut up shop..
no seriously, they shuttered the windows because America rejected the Paris Accord. Damn shame that.

Some days I agree with that statement and some days I do not. I don't like him as a person, but there are times I feel feel his intentions are good.
There are times I don't feel like that. There are days I feel he is bucking the system and there are days I feel that he is F#ing America and the rest
of the world to line his pockets and cater to the global elites.

I still think he is the neocon's bitch when it comes to foriegn policy, tho.

There is one good thing he did:

He quashed a conspiracy theory I held about elections/votes being rigged. I thought there is no way in hell a buffoon such as himself could ever
become POTUS due to HRC being an establishment candidate.

I thought all the solar facilities were failing due to millions of birds flying into the reflection and "frying"?
Are you an animal hater?

So if we give you $3,000,000,000,000 you will like us?

Not to mention all the Bald Eagles getting pureed by wind farms - bald eagles man, symbol of America!

Oh, and by the way we here on the west coast are seeing all of our clean air efforts canceled out by the massive pollution pumped out by China as it
wafts over the Pacific. I can't see how this accord was going to change that.

Have you ever had a seaweed salad? They're actually pretty tasty, and very healthy. I highly recommend them.

My wife is Asian, so ya... I like choice and if I want seaweed I will eat it, and if I don't then I'll eat whatever...that is my point.

It was also illegal to give billions of dollars to Iran, that's why Obama sent a plane with Swiss Francs, Euros, & British Pounds, all to circumvent
that pesky little law that prevents the United States and other members in the United Nations from contributing financially to a state that sponsors
terrorism.

I guess people just do not care that Obama totally ignored congress on these making them illegal to do. I didn't see a lot of judges jump up and
scream then...

Here is what I think the problem is, when we come out against things like cap and trade or the Paris accord, the left automatically assumes
that means we hate clean energy and want to stick with oil forever because we love us some greedy oil companies.

That's not the case. We are against the government forcing us to move away from these fuels by way of economic punishment. Innovation doesn't happen
by force. The light bulb wasn't invented because the government made laws against candle makers.

The problem with your analogy is that we're already subsidizing the candle makers and many of the candle makers are actively working to prevent the
invention of the light bulb.

Innovation can in fact happen "by force" and can be spurred in response to any number of pressures. There's a prevalent myth that free market forces
lead to optimal outcomes or worse, that only these free market froces promote innovation — or taking it further — that the way companies
"innovate" is always good for society. Technological innovation can and does lead to technological unemployment, outsourcing could be looked at as
innovation, etc.

Now don't get me wrong here, just as with fossil fuels, free market capitalism has in fact driven innovation. I'm not disputing that. However,
unregulated FMC has plenty of shortcomings that I'd be happy to discuss in another thread.

The government can in fact lead to innovation using the good old carrot and stick of subsidization and regulation. One example would be average fuel
economy increases since 1975 and the passage of the fuel economy law. Between 1975 and 1985 there was
a doubing in average fuel
economy for passenger vehicles. Then under Reagan, American auto manufacturers lobbied the Reagan admin and standards were lowered. Is it a
coincidence that fuel economy more or less hit a plateau then?

That's not to say that factors like oil prices don't impact fuel economy and it's difficult, particularly in the last decade, to determine how much of
the increase in fuel economy is from market forces and how much results from government regulation.

As for the carrot of subsidization. The obvious goto example here would be the Internet. Another example might be space travel. Investment of public
funds will in fact overcome the high cost of developing technological advances that private enterprise won't. I look at it this way: private
enterprise excels at incremental innovation but there's far less drive for major paradigm shifts that take decades to develop. How much of an R&D
budget will a corporation outlay for a technology that could take 20 years to develop as opposed to a technology that will increase profits the next
year or three years down the road?

So where does that leave major shifts that can't result from incremental improvements over existing technology? You can't improve coal burner to the
point that it becomes fusion.

I don't assume that all conservatives automatically love "greedy oil companies" and conservatives shouldn't assume that progressives automatically
hate them either. And I think at the end of the day, we all want the same result: cheaper, more available, more abundant, more sustainable, cleaner,
safer energy sources. It just seems that we have vastly different opinions about how to get there.

Last week new NASA photographs proved methane lakes exist on Saturn’s moon, Titan, showing that such hydrocarbons (or so-called ‘fossil fuels’)
are seemingly plentiful in our solar system. This startling discovery turns on its head the long-held western belief that petroleum is a limited
resource, because it is primarily derived (we had been told) from the fossilized remains of dead dinosaurs and rotted carbon-based vegetation.

But with that notion now exploded in the article ‘NASA Finds Lakes of Hydrocarbons on Saturn’s Moon, Titan‘ thanks to NASA’s Cassini
spacecraft, energy scientists are now compelled to admit that petroleum oil is, in fact, substantially mineral in origin and occuring all through the
galaxies.

Last week new NASA photographs proved methane lakes exist on Saturn’s moon, Titan, showing that such hydrocarbons (or so-called ‘fossil fuels’)
are seemingly plentiful in our solar system. This startling discovery turns on its head the long-held western belief that petroleum is a limited
resource, because it is primarily derived (we had been told) from the fossilized remains of dead dinosaurs and rotted carbon-based vegetation.

But with that notion now exploded in the article ‘NASA Finds Lakes of Hydrocarbons on Saturn’s Moon, Titan‘ thanks to NASA’s Cassini
spacecraft, energy scientists are now compelled to admit that petroleum oil is, in fact, substantially mineral in origin and occuring all through the
galaxies.

Great, we'll jut strap a couple of V8s on a rocket and go build some wells on Titan, huh?

How does one agree to the Paris accord...actually a treaty, and America takes the biggest hit. You know we are not the biggest entity here
polluting the world, right? America takes the biggest hit while China and India get a 20 years free pass go card. They can continue to build coal
plants to their heart desire etc as they out pollute the rest to the world like 10x and somehow Europe/America will counter act that.

If the Paris agreement were a treaty by the definition you are attempting to use, Trump couldn't have unilaterally withdrawn from it excepting
specific withdraw mechanisms outlined in a clause. The fact that it was signed onto by Obama as an SOE is in fact, the reason that he could.

No, we're the second biggest polluter.

We could continue to pollute to our heart's content as well, if we chose. There's no mechanism for "punishing" nations that fail to meet the goals
they establish.

What saves the world is technology and how technology creates cleaner methods that is not only better but cheaper and safer. Countries like
China, India, Russia are a long way from where the rest of us are at today. The US just though technology has reduced our green house effect by 18%
since the early 90s, so it can only get better, we do not need to be hamstrung by the Paris accord that basically screws America every which way and
everyone else gets a break.

No. We've actually reduced our emissions by 8% in terms of raw output. The 18% figure must be per capita or something else. I don't know how you're
attributing that to technological innovation strictly and perhaps more importantly, it should be understood that where there has been innovation, it
hasn't been purely the product of market forces.

A large chunk of that reduction comes from the very regulations that the Trump administration will be trying to relax or do away with altogether.
Other contributions come from things like increased use of alternate energy sources like solar and wind — you know, the sort of advances that Trump
isn't talking about because the GOP base has had it hammered into their heads that those are boondoggles.

Other factors include declining manufacturing and in fact, the recent recession as carbon emissions go down during recessions.

Once again Trump said he is willing to make a deal that is not so aggressive with America...remember Obama said that if we make everything to
expensive then people will be force to conserve, is that what you want? Lets put everyone in a situation where the pay 10 bucks a gallon gas and live
in 900 sq ft house and just make a living with that...I'm sure throwing in Michelle's diet plan and we could all live on seaweed too...

That's your opinion and frankly, you've been off the mark on quite a bit you've said so far. I don't believe that Donald Trump has any concern about
reducing emissions at all nor do I believe he has any concern with promoting new energy. Given what I know of his agenda, I think he's hoping that he
can do enough to facilitate fossil fuels that it will lead to a short term economic boom that will carry him into a second term and the future be
damned.

Withdrawing from the Paris agreement is one part fulfilling a campaign promise (which doesn't impress me as alot of his promises were stupid,
regressive, short-sighted, illiberal and a host of other adjectives) and one part getting it out of the way so that it wouldn't factor into domestic
legislation and regulations.

One thing to think about this is a treaty and that requires a 3/4 vote by Congress I believe and Obama basically said naw we do not need
Congress on this. The Paris accord is basically illegal by out government, and maybe Trump realizes that.

The nature of the US entrance into the agreement is far too complicated an issue to delve into in this post beyond the superficial talking points
(which we've done). Anyone is free to read the copious volume of comprehensive analysis and commentary. I tend to believe that it's something outside
of the four generally recognized categories of international agreements under US law based on what I've read.

I doubt Trump has really given it anywhere near that much thought. He's more of a shoot from the hip, broad strokes, repeating Fox News talking points
sorta guy. (my opinion)

While emotional responses accusing people of heinous ideals
that will lead to the end of the world do serve well as a tool
In social media pressuring, a quick look at the facts show that
pulling out of the Paris Accord as it is written was necessary.

Actual numbers are staggering!

The report’s central scenario projects that additional regulatory actions necessary to meet the Paris target would by 2025 reduce U.S. GDP
by $250 billion, reduce economy-wide employment by 2.7 million jobs, and lower household income by $160. Industrial sector jobs would fall by 1.1
million, with the cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining sectors suffering the largest production losses.

Under the study’s core scenario, the industrial 2025 output declines by about 21 percent, 20 percent, and 11 percent, respectively. Higher energy
costs also hurt domestic demand and the international competitiveness of U.S. industry, leading to a greater share of industrial demand being met by
imports. See more at: www.energyxxi.org...

And of course the naysayers conveniently leave out the 3 billion (with a "B") the US was expected to ante up...another program like the UN where the
US loses all it's treasure paying for the rest of the world. This was by far a GREAT decision and the only naysayers will be the usual suspects
(anti-Trump crowd)...

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.